Lazer Quest

@Bungle_52 The truck driver is, of course, making a meaningful journey from A to B, so...

Except that it doesn't say anything about fire risk, and unassisted bikes can just as easily be ridden in a dangerous manner (in which case, punish the offenders, not everyone else). They don't seem to have given any particular reason* for it, apart from a vague reference to changes in the law. If they'd said "There's a fire risk from dodgy ones and we don't have the capacity to check which are which" then people might not be so annoyed. As it is, it just gives the impression that they've made an arbitrary decision without much thought or reasoning at all. Tim, on the other hand, is just trouble, and deserves to have special measures taken against him. [* Apparently there was a letter to parents that hasn't been posted, but whatever the contents of that, it doesn't seem to have made the reasoning any clearer to them, judging by the social media comments.]

Fair enough - sometimes it's more obvious to them as is writing than them as is reading.

I'm intrigued what the data says for Scotland. Last year in Stirling, I had my bike (plus tailfin setup and camping kit) removed from the station cycle park and left against a rail to see if I noticed it. Thankfully I did and quickly made my way to get my train. I reported it online to PS when I got home, it was left for less than a hour and I mentioned that as a solo female traveller the most unnerving bit, was someone clearly watching me. Despite it being logged and a PS email to arrange a call back, the call back never came. They then had the nerve to text me a response questionnaire on how they'd done.

@mdavidford This is the instagram post. All seems very reasonable to me in view of the fire risk the batteries pose and the possibility of scooters and e-bikes being ridden in a dangerous manner when it's crowded at the start and end of the day. Children are still being encouraged to cycle to school but I'm a bit concerned that they are singling out tim for the lunch ban.

@mdavidford I thought you may have detected a hint of sarcasm there! Seriously though the standard of driving is much higher in London than Marrakesh.

That's terrifying!! I'm pretty sure I'd have ridden (or perhaps fallen or jumped) into the concrete ditch on the right; I wouldn't have even tried to stay on the carriageway. ********** Years ago in Laos I was riding into Vang Vieng at about 15mph when a lorry came straight towards me at full pelt (I was on the correct - right - side of the road). I made the instant decision to ride into the water-filled ditch on my right that ran immediately parallel to the road, having no idea of its depth. The water was only about 10 inches deep and I slowed down covered in muck but still upright. I then went back to see why the driver had chosen my side of the road, as he wasn't overtaking. Turns out there wasn't his side of the road - just a massive hole where it had been...

Whenever I see a near miss like this I can't stop myself thinking of all the excuses, sorry, reasons the police might give for not taking action if it happened in this country. List so far : We are not allowed to judge distances so we don't know how close the lorry was. At this point the lorry driver is going to have to inconvenience somebody. Lorry didn't cross the white line so it was the cyclists fault for not being in the cycle lane. Lorry was established. A close pass is not an offence. Am I getting cynical in my old age? Well done to the cyclist for staying alive.

This short sample of bargains tells the cycling community that retail prices are way too expensive. As fot Giant, they seem unable to get rid of their ageing inventory.

"...the delivery lorry in his lane, attempting to overtake another lorry..." "...the lorry does not decelerate or seek to move back to its own lane..." but "... as the driver narrowly avoids him." Come on @Callum Devereux Do better.